[helter skelter]

OK, I see now how he presumes that part of the equation. I had to think of it in terms other than doubling.

As each player busts out, he evenly distributes his chips to the other players, so using the 16 player tourney:

Player 16 goes out and now each of the other players has 1/15 the chips

Player 15 goes out and now each of the other players has 1/14 the chips

. . . .

Player 4 goes out and now each of the other players has 1/3 the chips

So rather than saying doubling, he could say:

"In general, the probability of finishing in ith place is the probability of aquiring up to a stack of N/i minus the sums of the probabilities of finishing in a higher place"

Doubling is just the chip aquisition method he is discussing


[ QUOTE ]


I think he comes up with really bad conclusions using this model. His results are still much more conservative than from other models. I'm not sure why. I think he made a serious miscalculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The general conclusion is something I've seen alluded to in other posts; that even a superior player can't afford to pass up high EV+ situations.

His example uses a player that has an ROI of 100% and he concludes that D (representing the probability that you would win an all-in confrontation) would only need to be .58 in the smaller tourneys and .56 in the larger tourneys (given typical payout schedules).

Are you saying D is higher using other models?